I've never used a PLEX to pay for subscription.

I usually pay for 1 year subscription with a Credit Card, it's the best deal of all and I don't have to worry about my subscription each month.



DMC

Honestly? No, no I wouldn't. Not 100% sure, but about 85% sure. I might come back, check out the latest expansion about twice a year, but that's about it.

It's the same deal as recently released Tera Online. I would play it if it was F2P. But at $15/mo, it's just not worth it. Note: I'm not saying I can't afford it, I'm saying that from a responsible consumer's point of view I can't justify throwing my money at an inferior product.

From where I'm sitting, decision-makers at CCP are their own worst enemy. The game could be very, VERY far ahead of where it is today, if they made simple, intelligent choices and made simple, intelligent modifications to the game. As it applies to EVE, I can't see myself spending money on an MMO that doesn't even have the ability to change the font or scale size. And no, I don't consider 100%-110%-125% and that's it a viable UI scaling system. I like to play on high resolution on big screen, and even at 125% it's still too damn small.

Until CCP starts fixing this very, very basic stuff that has been pretty much a standard feature for games post-2002, I don't see myself paying them for it. I'm not even talking "gankers vs miners" or the colossal failure that was Incarna. I mean very, very basic usability features.

Maybe it just hasn't occurred to you that there are a significant number of people that have to make a little in order for a small amount of people to make a lot. In any country, every person that is a high earner, is doing so at the expense of 100s or even 1000s of people that are now low earners. For mid-earners, they operate in the range of 3-7 people earning less, so they can earn more.

There is only so much money in the world, and the way it is handled and dispersed to the population is in a fashion that suits the ones controlling it.

Take for example a product that sells for 15$ on the shelf at a local convenience store. 1200 people work in factories and fields to produce that product for resale, and a small handfull of people profit from its actual sale.

Say the CEO makes 400K a year, and each of his upper staff and directors make 100K plus a year, which accounts for a total of 14 employees, and a bunch of mid-level staff make 50-80K per year, (we'll say 100), so now we've got gross revenues paying for 114 staff out of 1200 with available revenues for payroll on a product that will never really retail for more than 15$ on store shelves.

So now we've got a bunch of minor employees, (who in fact do most of the work), earning 20-30K per year out of the remaining revenues for payroll.

That's 1086 people earning in the 20-30K mark producing, packaging, and distributing a product for resale that retails at around $15, (their average earnings per hour or more), 100 people earning 50-80K for watching over them and handling sales and marketing, 13 people making 100K a year for making corporate decisions and talking to people, and 1 guy making 400K a year for essentially doing nothing.

The rest of the world works the same way. 1 person on top, a few people under him/her, and some more people beyong that who are well to do, and the rest just work and get by.

But in any developed nation, less than $15/hr. is sodding poor income. In some other countries, it may be a lot and hard to come by, and those countries may see greater differences between rich and poor than others, but in most countries, that or more is fairly standard. And yet, is it really a measure of income when its buying power changes depending on where you are.

Akirei isn't really wrong, so much as you are poorly understanding of his/her perspective. Incidently, I earn $15/hr. 36 years old, working in the Electrical trades as an apprentice. I've never earned more, and more often earned less.